LA WATCHDOG –
Shall the City Charter be amended to: establish a capital infrastructure plan and two-year budget cycle for the City; increase the authority of the Director of Public Works and allow for the elimination of or changes to the Board of Public Works; remove restrictions prohibiting the City from engaging in business enterprises and mortgaging City-owned property; and change certain contracting rules and procedures?
When voting, a common-sense rule is that if you do not understand the measure, vote no. This is the case with Charter Amendment LA (City Infrastructure, Budget, Finance, and Contracting), a grab bag of recommendations from the politically appointed Charter Reform Commission that were reviewed, analyzed, and restructured and then placed on the ballot by the City Council.
Several provisions of the amendment appear to be reasonable.
One would require the Mayor to present a two-year budget to the City Council by April 1. The current practice is a one-year budget that is due on April 20. This makes sense since it will provide better insight into the City’s finances and how the current budget influences the following year’s budget.
Another would require the City to prepare a Capital Infrastructure Plan, the terms of which shall be established by ordinance. This is a policy that should have been implemented years ago as matter of good planning and budgeting.
There are some contracting provisions that appear reasonable, especially for contracts related to software systems and their maintenance. Often, the lowest price is not the best deal for the City.
There are two provisions that are cause for serious concern, including those involving Public Works, an enterprise consisting of five bureaus with over 5,200 positions and a combined budget of $2 billion.
There is a provision to establish a Director of Public Works who would possess additional new powers, while at the same time, the City Council would have the right to make significant changes to the Board of Public Works, including to its very existence. The implications of these amendments are uncertain, but the consolidation of power is reason for concern, especially given the City’s lack of fiscal responsibility and reputation for corruption.
The area of most concern is the elimination of the sections of the Charter that prohibit the City from operating purely commercial or industrial businesses. This would allow the City to establish a municipally owned bank, an idea endorsed by the Charter Reform Commission. In 2018, however, voters rejected Measure B that would have permitted the creation of such an entity. As the Los Angeles editorialized, Charter Amendment B is “one of the most ill-conceived, half-baked ballot measures to come out of City Hall in years, and that’s saying something.”
Just imagine the shenanigans involved in the granting of loans to politically connected borrowers who are not credit worthy. This would result in the loss of billions, all at our expense.
Vote NO on Charter Amendment LA. There are too many unanswered questions.
(Jack Humphreville writes the LA Watchdog column for CityWatch, where he covers city finances, utilities, and accountability at City Hall. He is President of the DWP Advocacy Committee, serves as the Budget and DWP representative for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council, and is a longtime Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate. With a sharp focus on fiscal responsibility and transparency, Jack brings an informed and independent voice to Los Angeles civic affairs. He can be reached at [email protected].)
